Hindu Unity: A Step Towards National Unity – Part II

We welcome you to read our second part of Hindu Unity: A Step Towards National Unity.

If you have not read the first part, we would like to encourange you to read it here

They hate Savarkar- invoking the “Mahatma” !

Since several decades, a   sharp  contrast which  belittles  Veer  Vinayak Damodar Savarkar using Mahatma Gandhi as a weapon has been woven- not on facts but misleading opinions. Truth and non violence , peace and harmony, respect for all faiths: these are the words used for  Gandhi’s Hinduism.

As opposed to that, Hindu supremacism, political and militant in nature, second class treatment towards Muslims and Christians: these are the condemning words reserved for Savarkar’s Hindutva.

Whether it is Shashi Tharoor’s book Why I am a Hindu or the recently released Arun Shourie’s book, “The New Icon- Savarkar and the facts”,   the narrative  is same: saving all inclusive  Hinduism from intolerant  Hindutva.  

Hence this charge has to be met.

Gandhi’s Hinduism :

According to  Shourie, “ ….Gandhiji signified the best in Hinduism and the values that he tried to instil in us…For instance, truth, humility… those things are certainly a great embarrassment to them and therefore they want to erase him…”

This claim by Shourie is contentious. While being respectful towards Gandhi, one must be refrain from imposing the Mahatma  as  “best in Hinduism”.  Rishi Aurobindo, known for his brilliant intellect as also his treatises on spiritual loftiness of Hinduism for which he consecrated four decades of his life,  was a merciless critic of Gandhi’s ahimsa (non-violence). And perhaps for a good reason.

Gandhi’s non-violence- miscalled Hinduism–   was preaching thus: 

 ‘Hindus should not harbour anger against Muslims even if the  latter wanted to destroy them. Even if Muslims wanted to kill us all, we should face death bravely. If they established their rule after killing the Hindus, we should be ushering in a new world by sacrificing our lives.’

And yet Shashi  Tharoor writes  rather loftily,  “The principles Gandhiji stood for represent an ideal that is being weakened every day by those in power who are pushing their agenda of bigotry”. (Re: A betrayal of the very idea of the Mahatma- article by Shashi Tharoor, January 27, 2023, The Hindu). Tharoor accuses Savarkar of sneering at non-violence of Gandhi; this  smacks of Savarkar defamation.

The Hindu Muslim unity started by  the apostle of non-violence met with stiff criticism by Dr. Ambedkar, Dr. Annie Besant, Aurobindo and invited the displeasure by K.M. Munshi, Lala Lajpatrai and several others ; all this has been white washed by historians acting as hired agents writing with  an agenda.

When Gandhi supported the Khilafat movement started by Mopla Muslims (of Malabar province)  in 1920, it ended in ruthless butchery, massacre, plunder, loot and  rape of Hindus bordering  to genocide in the infamous “Mopla revolt”  which the  Mahatma  tried to overlook.

Writes Ambedkar, ‘The blood-curdling atrocities committed by the Moplas in Malabar against the Hindus were indescribable. All over Southern India, a wave of horrified feeling had spread among the Hindus of every shade of opinion, which was intensified when certain Khilafat  leaders were so misguided as to pass resolutions of “congratulations to the Moplas on the brave fight they were conducting for the sake of religion.” Any person could have said that this was too heavy a price for Hindu-Moslem unity.’

About Gandhi’s reaction to such violence, Ambedkar writes: 

“But Mr. Gandhi was so much obsessed by the necessity of establishing Hindu-Moslem unity that he was prepared to make light of the doings of the Moplas and the Khilafats who were congratulating them. He spoke of the Moplas as the ’brave God-fearing Moplas who were fighting for what they consider as religion and in a manner which they consider as religious.’..”

Mark the observation of Ambedkar: Gandhi was making light of Hindu killings. Ambedkar has given a list of  “prominent Hindus” murdered by  “Muslim fanatics” – to use Ambedkar’s  words all of which met with silence from the Mahatma. To cite  Ambedkar:

“ What is not understandable is the attitude of Mr. Gandhi.  Mr. Gandhi has been very punctilious in the matter of condemning any and every act of violence and has forced the Congress, much against its will to condemn it. But Mr. Gandhi has never protested against such murders. Not only have the Musalmans not condemned  these outrages but even Mr. Gandhi has never called upon the leading Muslims to condemn them. He has kept silent over them. Such an attitude can be explained only on the ground that Mr. Gandhi was anxious to preserve Hindu-Moslem unity and did not mind the murders of a few Hindus, if it could be achieved by sacrificing their lives.”

 “Inclusive”  Gandhi and  “Exclusive” Savarkar

From the period 1940 onwards, Mahatma’s   statements make for disturbing reading:

“…the strongest power in the land would sway  over all India and this may be Hyderabad for aught I know.  All other big and petty chiefs will succumb to the strongest power of Nizam who will be the emperor of India …If you ask me in advance,.. I would unhesitatingly plump for anarchy, say, the rule of Nizam, supported by chiefs becoming feudatory to him or supported by the border Muslim tribes.”

“… Muslim rule is equivalent to Indian rule. I would any day prefer Muslim rule to British rule.”

“Let them (the Hindus) say to the Mussalmans ‘ have as big a share of the spoils as you want: we will be content to serve you“

“..as a Hindu, I should know that I have nothing to lose even if the referee gave the Muslims as majority of seats in every province.”

“…It is the Muslims who will impose their will by force, singly or with British assistance, on an unresisting India. If I can carry the Congress with me, I would not put the Muslims to the trouble of using force. I would be ruled by them, for it would be still an  Indian rule.”

In spite of Gandhi’s advice to Hindus  asking them to be content in serving the Muslims and his acceptance of Muslim rule over India, the Mahatma enjoys reverence  as symbol of “inclusiveness” while curses are showered on Savarkar.  Arun Shourie’s makes a preposterous claim (read lies):

“….if you follow the sutras that Savarkar laid down for the formation of an Indian state of Hindu rashtra, it will become an Islamic state in saffron of the kind of cruelty that Savarkar associated with the Islamic state, with the super cunning, super deceit, which he propagated and which he said Hindus must acquire. That kind of state will make India a Pakistan, which we are becoming…. So, …..I’ve put out my plea: ‘Save Hinduism from Hindutva’.”

Unfortunately historical facts again tell a tale which is completely at odds with the  poisonous rant of Shourie. To cite  the speeches of Savarkar:

“Let the Indian State be purely Indian. Let it not recognise any invidious distinctions whatsoever as regards the franchise, public services, officers, taxation on the grounds of religion and race. Let no cognizance be taken whatsoever of man’s being Hindu or Mohammedan, Christian or Jew. Let all citizens of that Indian State be treated according to their individual worth irrespective of their religious or racial percentage in the general population.”

“Let ‘one man one vote’ be the general rule irrespective of caste or creed, race or religion…. Can any attitude towards an Indian State be more national than that? ”

“….public services to go by merit alone added to the fundamental rights and obligations to be shared by all citizens alike irrespective of any distinction of race or religion ….

But as practical politics require it and as the Hindu Sanghatanists want to relieve our non‐Hindu countrymen of even a ghost of suspicion, we are prepared to emphasize  that the legitimate rights of minorities with regard to their religion, culture and language will be expressly guaranteed: on one condition only that the equal rights of the majority also must not in any case be encroached upon or abrogated. Every minority may have separate schools to train up their children in their own tongue, their own religious or cultural institutions and can receive Government help also for these,‐but always in proportion to the taxes they pay into the common Exchequer. The same principle must of course hold well in case of the majority too.

Over and above this, in case the constitution is not based on joint electorates and on the unalloyed National principle of one man one vote, but is based on the communal basis, then those minorities who wish to have separate electorate or reserve seats will be allowed to have them,‐ but always in proportion to their population and provided that it does not deprive the majority also of an equal right in proportion to its population too.

Savarkar spoke of Hindu nation- as in civilization – but  State he envisioned was Indian. State is about administration, governance and parliamentary proceedings with  no room for discrimination on grounds of race, caste,  religion or region. “The Constitution of the Hindusthan Free State”   drafted by Hindu Mahasabha in 1945 has the vision of an avowedly non-discriminatory State with no official religion which treats all its citizens equally regardless of their religion.

Eminent historian Dr. Vikram Sampath, the author of two volume biography of Savarkar running in well over 1300 pages, has also  cited this Constitution,  and  rightly concluded:

“Public money was not to be utilised for the exclusive propagation or benefit of any particular sect, community or religion and that there would be no state religion in Free Hindusthan or its provinces. Minorities were thus envisaged as equal stake holders and not second-class citizens living as tenants in a Hindu majority country.”

Even a year before his passing away, Savarkar in 1965, said:

“My India would be a democratic state in which people belonging to different religions, sects or races would be treated with perfect equality. None would be allowed to dominate others. None would be deprived of his just and equal right of free citizenship, so long as everyone discharged the common obligation which he owed to the state as a whole..”

As opposed to all this, Mahatma  Gandhi  was mocking  Hindu Maharaja of Kashmir and telling him : abdicate in favour of Muslim majority of state and retire to Benares to do penance. However, the Mahatma would never offer a suggestion to the Nizam of Hyderabad or Nawab of Bhopal to abdicate in favour of Hindu majority by asking them to retire to Mecca to do Toba- as pointed out by Savarkar.  Gandhi was  even willing to support the invasion of Afghanistan over India for establishing Islamic rule prompting Ambedkar to ask:

“ Can any sane man go so far for the sake of Hindu Moslem unity ? But Mr. Gandhi was so attached to Hindu- Moslem unity that he did not stop to enquire what he was really doing in this mad endeavour.”

In view of all historical facts ,  the normalisation of continuous  venom spewed on Savarkar is like the barking of a dog gone rabid-  to use polite words of sympathy. It is larger agenda to break Hindu unity sweeping across the nation.

We will continue with the third part in this series of blogs on Hindu Unity. To read the first part of Hindu Unity, click here.

About Author – Manoj Shankar Naik

Manoj Shankar Naik is in the coaching profession teaching Mathematics for school and junior college as well as competitive entrance exams for admission to engineering courses. Apart from his profession, he has a deep interest in the history of the colonial era and is fairly well-versed in the writings of most national leaders.

Manoj has also written books on Savarkar. You can buy his book from here.

Our team would love to receive your feedback. Feel free to provide your feedback through comments. Please share this article with your family and friends.

Thank you for reading.